Follow by Email

Translate

quinta-feira, 3 de dezembro de 2009

Dear colleagues,

This communication has been sent to lots of people in the world and serves to make the international community to know that some years ago I discovered and registered the discovery of the NEW HYDROLOGICAL CYCLE, as well as to give other informations. On 02 November 2009 European satellites were launched by a Russian rocket with the aim at finding "alterations in the water cycle". Then, if from now on you hear that alterations in the water cycle have been found you should know that this represents confirmation of my discovery of the new hydrological cycle, which is, among other things, the proof that the human being is really able to alter the natural cycles and thus cause climatic changes.

There is no doubt that this cycle already exists since a long time ago but markedly since the industrialization era. However, the IPCC and the sciences that support this UN organization don´t know this and don´t go by this way. On the contrary, they have always neglected completely the importance of the water vapor for the greenhouse effect, despite the fact that they know that it is the main greenhouse gas. They consider that the water vapor remains only 10 days in the atmosphere, but there are works that showed that the XX Century became more humid and that almost all of the planet became more humid in the last 40 years. So, since the humidity and the raining increased in the planet in the last decades, how could the water vapor remain only 10 days in the atmosphere and have no influence on climatic changes? I have theoretical and experimental background on the greenhouse effect and I know all of its effects (contrarily to what is observed in the IPCC´s literature) and I state that the water vapor cannot be eliminated from it.

There are also lots and lots of errors and insanities in the referred empirical sciences. For example, the IPCC moves the world due to the CO2, but the H2O absorbs radiation about 100 times more than the CO2 and has a concentration about 100 times greater than that of the CO2. However, this does not make us to neglect the importance of the CO2, but this gas is not the only responsible for the greenhouse effect and climatic changes.

Now, see another absurd performed by the IPCC. The IPCC determined, by a human decision, not by a physical condition, that the GWP (Global Warming Potential) of the CO2 is always and forever equal to 1, despite the fact that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has always increased. Thus, even that the CO2 could increase a million times in the reality, for the IPCC calculations and models the GWP of the CO2 is always constant. Absurd!

Moreover, based on this GWP = 1 they say that the methane is about 23 times more powerful for the greenhouse effect than the CO2. If the GWP = 1 for the CO2 is erroneous, then it is erroneous for the methane and for all other gases, because the GWPs of all of them are related to the GWP of the CO2. And the water vapor is not included in such list. I created a method based on real and variable data for these gases and in it the GWP for the CO2 is obviously not constant, the CH4 is not more powerful than the CO2 and the real conditions of the atmosphere determine the real GWPs, not the empiricism.

The science of the IPCC has already arrived to a dead end. The IPCC and the sciences that support it have always neglected the presence and importance of the water vapor in the atmosphere for accounting climatic changes and have put all the corresponding responsibilities on the CO2. However, due to recent works that showed that the planet has become more humid, the IPCC has timidly started to recognize the importance of the H2O in the atmosphere. However, since the CO2 does not add even a drop of water in the atmosphere, they do not have arguments to explain where comes from the increased humidity and then their sciences arrived to a dead end. An atmospheric warming does not explain this and only the new hydrological cycle explains this.

They also did not understand why the evaporation decreased while the clouds and the rain increased in the last 50 years and thus they named this as the "evaporation paradox". The nature does not work through paradoxes, instead it works through direct physical principles. Any housewife who put clothes to dry in the air could explain this fact and I can explain it scientifically, and obviously, there isn´t a paradox.

Additionally, they did not understand why in the last decades the solar radiation at the surface decreased 4 to 10 % while the temperatures increased in the same places of the world. I can explain, easily.

Furthermore, the schematic rural greenhouse adopted by the IPCC to explain the greenhouse effect does not include water and everything changes when we include or not the water in the greenhouse. The results are very different if the water does not exist in the greenhouse effect. Its exclusion of the greenhouse makes the understanding to be wrong and cannot explain irregular rains, for example. The new water cycle can explain this, too.

I also created a method that is able to say here and now whether and in what level any place of the planet is submitted or not to the so called "global" warming, and not making predictions for 100 years ahead. The causes and consequences related to the warming are rather local than global. I applied the method for Campinas SP, Brazil, and in fact, in that industrialized region there are symptoms of the "global" warming, but the same method applied to the city of Bauru, few kms ahead in the same Sao Paulo State, Brazil, and for the same period, did not show any sign of such warming. Since the CO2 layer is the same between these two places, why in one there are indications of such warming and in the other there isn´t? The CO2 is not absolutist!

I can also demonstrate and prove mathematically based on physical principles that hurricanes and tornadoes are caused by power plants, yes, power plants, which release thousands of tons of gases per hour with more than 1,000 or 2,000 degrees Celsius. For the Katrina, portions of air had to be with about 360 C to cause the wind speed of more than 280 km/h, and for the Catarina hurricane in Brazil (it happened only after the installation of power plants in the Country, a new situation in its energetic matrix) portions of air had to be with about 230 C for the wind to reach more than 180 km/h. Natural conditions and temperatures as well as of the "global" warming do not have capacity to create such strong winds! The sciences which give support to the IPCC and to the so called "global" warming don´t know this and other simple things because their sciences are extremely and fundamentally empirical and primitive and do not make use of the universal sciences. The referred sciences cannot explain these phenomena and other questions scientifically because they always depend on empirical and historical data and on statistics and not on the physics of the problems. And even if they wait 50 years to get a huge amount of data, they will not be able to explain scientifically any event because they do not know the first principles, as this has already happen with the evaporation "paradox", among other situations.

The IPCC´s science of very low rigour will not lead the world to the correct way.